Does the Italian pediatric anesthesia training program adequately prepare residents for future clinical practice? What should be done?

BACKGROUND: Pediatric anesthesia should be considered a subspecialty addressing the complete pediatric population (from preterm to teenager) and requiring particular anatomical, pathophysiological, pharmacological and anesthesiological knowledge. A survey was conducted to evaluate the training in pediatric anesthesia performed by Medical Schools of Anesthesia in Italy and to assess if the European Federation of Associations of Pediatric Anesthesia (FEAPA) guidelines for training in pediatric anesthesia had been adopted. METHODS: The survey was addressed to the Directors of the Departments of Anesthesia and Intensive Care of the Medical Schools throughout Italy using a questionnaire. RESULTS: We contacted all 37 Schools of Anesthesia, but only 26 of these (70 %) answered all the questions. A specific training program exists in 24 (92%). The duration of the training is variable: in 40% of the schools it lasts 2 months, in 27% 3 months and in 33% more than 3 months (3-6 months). Only 29% of the Schools required a minimum number of procedures to be performed during the training period. A final test is performed in 46% of the Schools. A dedicated staff for pediatric anesthesia exists in 70% of the Italian Schools. CONCLUSIONS: In Italy, the FEAPA guidelines have not yet been completely adopted. The experience of a dedicated unit for pediatric anesthesia will be invaluable to define operative guidelines, courses and to establish the minimum equipment necessary for pediatric management in nonspecialist hospitals.

Level of sedation evaluation with Cerebral State Index and A-Line Arx in children undergoing diagnostic procedures.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring of anesthesia depth is difficult clinically, particularly in children. The aim of this study was to assess the correlation existing between CSI (Cerebral State Index), or AAI (A-line ARX) and a clinical sedation scale such as UMSS (University of Michigan Sedation Scale), during deep sedation with propofol in children undergoing diagnostic procedures. METHODS: Twenty ASA I and II children, scheduled to undergo deep sedation for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGDS), were enrolled. The patients were randomly assigned to receive depth of anesthesia monitoring with CSI or AAI. The anesthetist administered repeated doses of propofol every 10 s to a UMSS score of 3-4. An attending anesthetist, not involved in drug administration, recorded time and doses of sedation medications, vital signs, UMSS score and CSI or AAI score. All the evaluations were recorded at awake state (baseline), every 10 s until an UMSS score of 3-4 and every 3 min until the children were awake. RESULTS: We enrolled 13 males and seven females ranging in age from 8 months to 7 years. After induction of anesthesia CSI and AAI scores decreased and from the end of the procedure to emergence the two scores increased. The CSI data showed a strong correlation with the UMSS scores (r = -0.861; P < 0.0001); we found a similar correlation between the AAI data and the UMSS scores (r = -0.823; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that CSI and AAI may be two, real-time and objective tools to assess induction and emergence during propofol sedation in children undergoing EGDS and MRI.